Yep. I seem to remember in a former lifetime we had E over D just like the USA and Canada!

And Broome and Karratha!

How ever did we end up with the giant roadblock airspace?

Now two unnecessary deaths!

So sad

that's a point Broome is e over d.
So do you think a d surveillance approach at coffs would be good?

Not a good way to allocate finite safety resources

The radar direction was not intended to have millions spent on a terminal radar facility.

It was to focus AsA to put the correct airspace above D.

what airspace did the minister Anderson want. We had e over d at the time. Didn't he say a radar service had to be put in. I just googled it and it seems he wanted radar services. Coffs has good radar coverage and probably good adsb as well so it seems ready to go?
do you fly much these days? I used to follow your adventures when I was a kid. Very inspirational and got me interested in flying. Could not afford choppers though.

Cloud isn’t created by legislation to provide a ‘service’ that is supposedly about ‘safety’. Air ‘services’ is.

A pilot can’t talk to cloud and request it do anything - at least not to any effect. Pilots can talk to Air ‘services’ and request clearances through gin-clear, empty airspace.

And clouds don’t behave in arbitrary and unpredictable ways that confuse and exasperate people with knowledge of meteorology. The differences in behaviour and outcomes in different parts of the Air ‘services’ system are manifest, confusing and exasperating, and denied only by those who’ve been on the Air ‘services’ KoolAide for way too long.

it is sad. i think his passenger was his son. Apart from the lack of clearance, do you think it was avoidable. He was not licenced to fly, so perhaps a road trip from Murwillumbah to Coffs would have been more appropriate until he was checked as competent for a renewal and he had the appropriate briefings and nav planning like a map or EFB.
would anyone here really fly an aircraft unlicensed with no met briefing, no nav gear and fly over high country in marginal weather? Would anyone take their child up without the legal authorisation to fly and without the required paperwork and nav gear. And you sir have the gall to focus on the airspace as the cause? If he used an EFB App for a couple of hundred bucks, he would have had terrain alerts like I have on my Ipad.
but if he stayed on the ground as he was legally bound to they would have been alive today.
If he had of survived, he would have been charged with illegal operation of an aircraft. If he had of advised ATC he required the clearance due wx, he would have saved himself and his poor son.
Do you acknowledge this pilot should have never started the engine that day due to the findings of ATSB stating multiple breaches of the legislation?

The prime cause of the accident was that the pilot was prevented from flying en route at 6500 above all the hills on his way to Taree.

If the NAS airspace had been in place he would not have been forced to descend into a mountain.

Having a current bi annual would not have allowed the pilot to remain at 6500’.

The ATSB were dishonest for not mentioning that the airspace had been reversed from E to C without any valid safety study and also failing to mention that the radar direction had not been complied with by AsA.
If the radar direction had been complied with it would have been most likely the aircraft would have remained at 6500’ above the mountains!

Its not called “ road block” airspace for no reason.

no one is ever forced to fly into a mountain. If you were flying illegally and ill prepared and you were denied a clearance, would you just descend into a mountain at Dorrigo or would you advise ATC you require a clearance and stay at 6500ft? Would you really fly down into the stratus that was obscuring the terrain as the report states or would call pan. Never in the history of ATC has a clearance been denied if the pilot advises they are in trouble. I was denied a clearance in C once over terrain and I advised I had a sick passenger due turbulence and requested climb due to the mountain waves. Slight delay of about 1 minute then clearance was provided. I had a flight plan in the system which expedited the clearance. If you need help you ask. If you don't then OCTA is safe... if you are licenced to fly and you have appropriate maps and nav gear for a cross country over the great dividing range and if you log on to NAIPS and check the forecast for low cloud on your route then a denial of a clearance will not kill you and your passengers.

Pinky, do you really think that compliance with legislation will save you? Even if this bloke had complied, he was still denied clearance.

Come on. If it was E airspace as per Government NAS policy its most likely we would not be discussing this now.

In the USA and Canada VFR aircraft are not forced to lower levels when flying en route over D airspace.

Why does it happen here? Do you know why the E over D was reversed?

from what I have read is that ATC have been trying to lower E and change to E over D but airlines and GA have said no. I googled the changes proposed and they are rejected by GA
didn't the regulator change e over d to c over d in the early 2000s.?
it's all very confusing.

hey mate. I do think that being legal to fly, planning and having a safe plan b goes a long way. He could have forced the clearance by calling pan.
he had not done an AFR for years as the report states and was not flying with any reference to charts. Had no situstional awareness if position, terrain and weather.. that is why we have regulations

All the minute detail about the pilot in the ATSB report was to take away any attention to the fact that the airspace had been reversed and that no other country had similar airspace.

How could they ever do an honest investigation without mentioning this?

If they mentioned that the airspace had been reversed they would have had to cover “ why”?

It could be a career limiting move to have covered this!

So much for honesty and openness in safety investigation.

I live in the US, so I'm just a lurker here. But take a look at KHWD (Hayward) in California. KHWD is Class D to 1500, then class C (for KOAK) to 2100, then class B (for KSFO) to 10000, then Class E above that (to 18000).

Thanks for the insight Marc :ok:

Welcome.

Ok. I will re phrase. No country in the world has an isolated country town class D airport with C above.

The airport being referred to is clearly under the steps of C airspace in the high traffic density area of San Francisco. Similar to Bankstown.

The C airspace mentioned clearly follows the ministers directive by having an approach radar control service.

No such thing at Coffs. It was clearly the prime reason the pilot was forced down to his and his sons death!

great point. What class of airspace should a radar approach service be at Coffs in your mind sir?

With the greatest of respect no pilot is forced to do anything, two words suffice, "unable" and "require", if your back is to the wall you can legally throw all the regulations out the window.

If AsA is going to spend the money to install an approach radar control service at Coffs Harbour the allocated airspace would be class C.

However this would clearly be a gross mis allocation of finite safety resources.

Coffs should be D with E above as per the accepted NAS policy. Just like Karatha and Broome.

The pilot would have kept flying en route at 6500’ above the clouds and mountains. It was only a line and a letter C on a map that resulted in him being forced to descend by ATC into the bad wx and a mountain.

He must have had some form of a chart as he knew where to call for a clearance!

spot on. The safety of all souls rests with the PIC and that includes ignoring ATC clearance or no clearance to ensure you don't fly into terrain.

question for you Mr Snith. If you only held VFR licence and were in the situation at Coffs, would you have descended into the bad wx or would you have advised ATC that you require to stay at 6500 due wx and require a clearance?
would you really have said to your passenger, sorry mate, there is a roadblock ahead and ATC are forcing me to fly into the low cloud below and I think we could end up hitting the ground at 160mph, I am so sorry, I did not self brief on this flight and we have to go down because the consequences of calling pan are greater than our imminent death. Or would you have said, don't worry mate, I'll let ATC know I can't descend due low cloud and I am going to maintain my present altitude so we don't hit the ground. Pan Pan Pan require clearance! Roger Pan Understood cleared 6500 track .....
seriously Sir, would you not have used the second scenario?

Give up pinky, you won’t get thru to Dick. He has a bee in his bonnet about this and won’t change his opinion, nor accept that the pilot could have done something better. The pilot wasn’t “forced”- its just emotive language that’s unnecessary; and honestly it detracts from the point he is trying to make.

did the lack of clearance affect the outcome of the flight? Yes.
but does the lack of a clearance in general cause a fatal accident? No. I imagine there are probably many denials of clearances in a day. Yet they don’t end up in fatal.

could the pilot have done something else? Yeah. Definitely. We all know that, but some don’t admit it because doing so doesn’t help their cause.
It’s up to us driving the things to be safe, regardless of ATC. Maybe if he had a current biannual that point could have come up and we’d never be talking about this accident.

It’s well known as “road block” airspace.

Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.

Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.

It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.

The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.

And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.

The two GPS units are quite a curve-ball really. Both showed airspace and terrain and also had terrain warnings.

It is highly likely that if he chose to turn around or take some other safe course of action they would both be alive today, no?

Will you at least admit that?
probably not.

It’s a bit like saying if the pilot got out of bed 5 minutes later, it wouldn’t have happened, or if he had taken a different longer route to the airport or got a coffee on the way, it wouldn’t have happened. They could have also been broadsided by a semi trailer on the way to the airport.

Swiss cheese.

If the road block airspace wasn’t there, this *most* likely wouldn’t have happened.

You can change some things and others you can’t.

If you can change things for the better by a procedural or administrative change, then make the change to the airspace so that this hole in the Swiss cheese is closed off and the holes don’t line up for the next guy who comes along.

So what if the next guy hasn’t done his BFR and isn’t carrying a WAC, we can’t control that other than through punitive measures, but what we can control is the roadblock ahead. Why have a freeway in the sky that nobody can use when somebody else is using it?

Now here’s a challenge.

The ATSB report stated that AsA plan to change the C above Coffs Harbour back to E.

What was the reason for the change from E to C at Coffs?

Ten points to the closest correct answer!

Remember if it had remained E the two would most likely still be alive today!

Surely it has to be about cost or someone’s position of power, with the two usually being closely related.

Are you telling me he did not descend below 6500 because he was refused clearance through the road block airspace? Is so why didn’t the ATSB say this?

If there was such a small amount of C why wasn’t he given a clearance?

Surely it’s clear that it was the C that forced the descent.

There wasn't really any evidence that produced that he hadn't completed a flight review. More like no evidence was found that he had. They didn't find his logbook, they asked 2 flight schools, and CASA did not have a record of a flight review. Submitting the notification to CASA is the responsibility of the instructor, and last flight review I was told to check after a few weeks because CASA apparently have a tendency to lose them. (Have you checked yours?)

He did have a valid medical - I wonder why an active pilot would renew their medical, but ignore the flight review?

As discussed previously in this thread, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the pilot and ATC. ATC told him a clearance was available through the Class D not above 1000'. No tracking instructions were given. The pilot appears to have read that back as a clearance. Technically it does constitute a class D clearance i.e. 2 way communication.

It appears to me that the pilot believed he had been instructed to descend to 1000' on track.

He didn't want to descend. He had an alternative - divert around the airspace at 6500 - which he was in the process of implementing. But I suspect that after being bounced between controllers and making 4 requests for clearance, he felt that he couldn't say "Sorry, I don't want the clearance after all" and felt obligated to proceed as instructed.

The GPS would show the boundaries of the airspace, but it is probably difficult to interpret the vertical limits. The pilot probably assumed that if ATC instructed him to descend to 1000, the airspace went down to that level. Then the GPS reported clear of the airspace and he stopped his descent, until the GPS warned that he was about to enter airspace again on the opposite side. At that point he resumed his descent to 1000' as (he believed) instructed.

As for descending into IMC - if the cloud is building up against the hills, there might be a hole where you can see clear air underneath, but the cloud obscures the hill beyond the hole until after you descend through it. If he believed he had been instructed to descend to 1000' on track, he may have assumed that he was clear of the hills and could safely descend through a hole and the clear air would continue underneath.

The communication between the pilot and ATC is critical to this report. I question why the transcript was not provided. I also wonder whether the focus on the pilot's flight review is intended to divert questions away from the ATC role.

Haven't you done your human factors? He asked 4 times, switching between 2 different controllers. Do you think that maybe he would have felt a bit stupid turning around and saying "Actually, I'll just go around the airspace"?

Fear of looking like an idiot must rank as a leading cause of death through all of history. (Get-there-itis is one particular sub-genre of it).

Well argued, andrewr.

Another hatchet job by ATSB/CASA/Airservices to bury some inconvenient truths.

We’re starting to get some telling glimpses into Pinky’s true colours.

As an RAA pilot I'm used to dodging cta. Including going below, then climbing up when clear.

But in all of this. Isn't the accident site 15 or 20 minutes past cta? Regardless of the clearance how long past cta does the responsibility return to the pilot
Or am I missing something.

In the thread about Class E, you said, among other things:On my reading, you said that because of concerns you have about the different risks arising from CAGRO arrangements versus AFIS arrangements.

Is my reading correct?

If yes, you seem to be conceding - in my view perfectly reasonably - that systemic issues may create risks that contribute to accidents: A bunch of little 'problems' lead to a big problem. Indeed, in more enlightened times Australia's transport safety investigations bodies seemed to understand the concept that systemic issues could contribute to accidents - the 'Swiss Cheese' concept.

Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?

Let's take one issue: If the pilot was in fact flying around 'illegally' - that is, without having completed the required aeroplane flight review within the previous two years - why was that not detected by the safety regulator and addressed before the accident? My guess - I have no knowledge of the specific pilot's specific circumstances - is that the review was in fact completed but, as a consequence of the clusterf*ck that is CASA's implementation of Part 61 - of which I do have first-hand knowledge - the 'paperwork fell through the cracks'.

But it's so, so easy and so, so convenient (for Airservices, ATSB and CASA) to give the impression that the pilot was flying 'illegally'. (Again, so much for the 'rule of law'...)

Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?

That's about right.

The Direction was issued as the usual pre-election Dick-distractor.

CASA's opinion on the matter was irrelevant to Airservices' obligation to comply with the Direction, but great raw material for the usual smoke and mirror tricks.

Agreed!

And what would you say are the main 'elements' of the ones that 'lined up' here?

How do you know that the pilot did not obtain a weather briefing?

How do you know he did not plan appropriately?

We indisputably know he did not plan appropriately as he crashed fatally.
Pinky is on the money all the way.

As discussed way earlier in this thread, we need to read the transcript or hear the recordings to make our own judgement on whether the pilot interpreted the clearance availability to be below 1,000 as a recommendation, or as a direction.

ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft

or

ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft

Etc etc

This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.

I fail to see how a clearance Not Above 1000ft is legal?